Tasting Notes
November/December, 2001

Tasting Notes Contents Page

QPR Winner   I give this award to wines that demonstrate an excellent quality to price ratio. They are sometimes more expensive than the wines featured in my Best Buys section (which is cut off at $15), so while every Best Buy is also a QPR Winner,  not every QPR winner is an official Best Buy.  QPR winners are simply wines that are great values for a relatively  reasonable price.  NB: If you are using Netscape, there will sometimes be some formatting issues, mostly regarding the supposed failure to turn off bold lettering. It is not a big deal, but if it bothers you, try Internet Explorer.

Alsace  Bordeaux  Burgundy red  and white Calif./USA: Red  Dessert/Sparkling
Germany  Italy  Loire  Rhone/South/SW France  Spain

---

Alsace (except dessert/sparkling)
1999 Gewurztraminer “Heimbourg” (Zind-Humbrecht)
Pineapples and pears fought for primacy in this slightly off dry, very elegant, bright gewürztraminer. The finish was pristine, sunny and long, and this easy-drinking, gentle wine gave yet another example of the Heimbourg style, which, contrary to perception, stands out from the ZH style.  I might have liked a little more intensity, but only the churlish could dislike this charming and graceful wine.  90 points.

1994 Pinot Gris “Rangen Clos St. Urbain” (Zind-Humbrecht)
I’ve followed this rare wine (little of the regular Rangen was made in ’94, and still less found its way into the USA) from its release, and it has never been anything other than stunning. With age now, the sweetness is blowing off and the underlying balance coming to the fore as always happens. (Please don’t listen to the unbalanced critics who decry ZH balance!) For a seven year old pinot gris, the pristine fruit and depth is simply remarkable. It seems bigger and deeper than the ’99 Heimbourg above, and shows complex nuances of spice, smoke and cloves, with some acid on the finish. It also shows increasing elegance and flavor with air. On the whole, remarkable pinot gris, and an example of why I think ZH is the best Pinot Gris maker in the world. 95 points.

1994 Riesling “Hengst” (Josmeyer)
All acid, with the fruit way too lean, this wine reminded you more of a young Mosel from a 1996-style vintage, except that there was more power and less fruit. It seemed that there was too little going on here to hold up to the acid—a fatal imbalance, not to deny that it had its good points.  84 points.

1998 Gewurztraminer "Vendange Tardive Rangen Clos St. Urbain" (Zind-Humbrecht)
This is a curiosity in some respects since I didn't get to taste it until it had been open overnight--for twenty-four hours. So, no score.  It tasted odd and older,and others who had had it in the original incarnation assured me that some of that was the same as always. It had no gewurz feel or flavor or nose, an oddity for ZH. In fact, it was  a dead ringer for a mature Riesling Beerenauslese or maybe a Navarro cluster select riesling with some age. That was the first issue. Second, the dark gold color so atypical of a young wine. Third, the remarkable viscosity.  This could have been SGN.  Fourth, despite the viscosity it did not seem terribly fresh or really sweet, but had the mature, grilled apricot flavors aging riesling sometimes get.  Oh. On the whole, I rather liked it. But it was an oddball wine from A to Z, and definitely there wasn't much ZH feel to this.

 

[Return to Top]  

---

Bordeaux (except dessert/sparkling)
1998 L'Arrosée
Light, and a bit off, with some strawberries and rhubarb, but not much cassis or flavors typical of Merlot. I don't know what they were trying to do in this vintage, but a showing this poor in a vintage this good is a bit troubling for an estate I've always liked.  The lack of depth is troubling. At least when the Mondavis (reviewed elsewhere on this page) are light, they are also classic cabs in flavor.  Would that this were classic St. Emilion.  85 points.

 

1995 1ère Cotes de Bordeaux “Cuvee Clovis” (Roquebert)

This inexpensive Bordeaux shows nice typicity, not much else. It’s completely hollow in the mid-palate, short on the finish. It is missing weight and concentration in every respect.  Not surprising perhaps—it is what it is, and it isn’t supposed to be Chateau Latour. Still, this watery wine, although pleasant enough tasting, leaves a lot to be desired. 82 points.

 

1990 Chateau Grand Puy Lacoste

GPL has delivered some pretty big wines for its status, and here’s another. After some three hours in the uncorked bottle, and lots of experimentation in the glass, this never fully opened. It seemed tight and brooding all night long. On opening there was some tobacco. The tannins manifested themselves mostly on the finish, where they seemed astringent. They perhaps contributed to some disturbing bitterness the wine showed on the finish, too. On the whole, this was not entirely a pleasant wine to drink just now, as its underlying and considerable structure were overwhelming the fruit. Towards the end of a long evening the tannins seemed to become riper and less astringent, and there were hints of opening and evolution, but only hints. I was impressed by the power and concentration,  annoyed by the bitterness….this was otherwise real hard to evaluate at the moment.  I am pleased to report that after two days on the vacuvin, it dissolved into sweet cassis. 90-92 points.

 

1990 Chateau Lynch Bages

Whereas the GPL above is brooding and powerful, this is gentle and charming, fully open, it seems, and tasting just great. The sweet fruit is laced with classic cassis notes, and the wine is pure Pauillac. Elegant and velvety in texture, it drank well from start to finish all evening. It doesn’t show much depth or power, but no hollowness either. Pleasing and charming at all times. 90 points.

 

1989 Chateau Haut-Marbuzet
Sweet and harmonious, this wine is laced with juicy fruit, and bright, soft, supple tannins.  I liked its gentle demeanor, its blue fruit flavors and its overall charm.  Delicious and easygoing, although not a powerhouse. Drinking well now. 90 points.

 

1975 Chateau Ducru Beaucaillou
This opened surprisingly opulent, rich and, not surprisingly, deep. At age 26, it seemed powerful and young, the fruit seemed vibrant and sweet. True to its vintage, there was some astringency on the finish—but not much, and it went away fast with air. This has always seemed to me to be one of the most successful wines of the vintage, benefiting from the depth Nature provided, yet avoided the harsh tannins that often came with it. With a couple hours of air, the wine achieved some Ducru elegance, but also, somewhat troublingly, began to show its age more and acquired perhaps a few too many notes of decay. Still, it always remained deep and concentrated. I wonder if a better bottle might even show more impressively.  89 points.

 

1981 Chateau Margaux

Whether inherent in the wine or the bottles I’ve had, this is a wine that has always been all over the place.  While never a great wine, sometimes it seems like a wine that would be happy to achieve mediocrity, other times it has been pleasing, if light. This is a better bottle. It is light, gentle and slightly faded, but it actually improved with air, and had charming flavors and a demeanor I rather enjoyed. If it is a bit of an old dowager, it never quite lost it all, and it showed the ability to make a point every now and then, remaining persistent and alive throughout the evening. There’s little if any tannin left—so drink up. 86 points.

 

1988 Chateau Cos d’Estournel

This is a superlative Cos from a sometimes limiting vintage. Precise and focused, this wine nonetheless avoids the stereotypes of the vintage. Nothing austere here!  The fruit is sweet, surprisingly youthful and grapey, and laced with cassis, and the texture delivers plenty of velvet. Persistent, intense and bright, this delivered flavor all night long, and kept improving all the while. 92 points.

 

1998 Chateau Soutard

Another superlative merlot-based wine in 1998!  I liked most everything about this. Chocolate notes and texture, tinged perhaps with some caramel, surged up from an elegantly crafted, but solid wine.  This needs time to fully open, and might be better around 2006. When it does, expect something sexy, ripe and a lot of fun.  90 points.

 

2000 Chateau Talbot

This wine seems almost inoffensive, very young, grapey, fairly light.  On the back, there were lurking some mouth-drying tannins, and I suspected that if I had more time to experiment, this would have become much more aggressive.  I liked the tasty blueberry tinged fruit a lot, but the wine lacked some depth. Will it put on weight with air and age? I think this will close down hard, and you’ll probably not want to think about it again until about 2011.  87-89 points.

 

1998 Chateau Rol-Valentin

A powerful blackberry nose could be smelled from a couple of feet away. It presaged a ripe, opulent wine.  The depth here is remarkable, and there’s more than a dollop of oak, for sure. I liked the texture, sweet, liquid chocolate. The tannins are very ripe, and the wine is incredibly seductive and sensuous. This is pure hedonism. 91-93 points.

 

2000 Chateau Sainte-Colombe Cotes de Castillon QPR Winner

This inexpensive wine did a lot right in its price range, showing decent flavor, decent structure, with ripe tannins, and reasonable depth. It seemed a bit dull at first, but opened quickly. A couple of years of cellaring might improve it.  A good value wine.  85-87 points.

 

1990 Chateau Léoville Las Cases

At nearly age 12, this wine in some respects seems new.  Grapey, with well defined cassis notes, it combines persistent flavor with a velvety texture.  It shows elegantly, but the intensity of flavor pops up all the time at exactly the right time. It is well delineated and classically flavored.  It is not the biggest Las Cases ever or the deepest, but it has a classy, seductive demeanor that is hard to resist to because it projects such clear, focused fruit and resulting flavor in a nicely texture body. 92 points.

 

1982 Chateau Figeac
Crusty and dusty, this wine slowed formed with a little air, and became pleasing, if unexceptional. Laced with tobacco, and showing some notes of age, it displayed thinning but still live fruit. This has some attractive notes to it, but also showed a bit too much oxidation to be really attractive. There was also a touch of barnyard—but not much, and I rather the liked the leathery nuance it imparted. 84 points.

 

1989 Chateau La Conseillante
Rich, chocolately notes, lead to an opulent, thick, delicious Conseillante, with purity of flavor and a lingering finish. The depth of the wine—while at the same time being gentle and round—was impressive. Through the night, it never stopped changing, and never stopped throwing off waves of fruit flavor. For all of that, it seemed charming and easygoing, relatively low in tannin. 94 points.

 

1994 Chateau Latour
Served blind with a large number of top notch 1994 California cabs, this stuck out like a sore thumb, and was fairly easily outclassed, too.  Still, it was an interesting wine. It had a powerful, if somewhat funky, nose that made the wine seem older than it was.  It gave the impression of being big and powerful, yet on reflection, the fruit was not really that deep and the tannins weren't very aggressive. It was more as if it were a once-powerful, somewhat older wine. The bottle or the wine?  It certainly lacked the power and tannin I expected.  In any event, from this bottle, it expanded and opened quickly, seemed burly on the surface, without showing much in the mid-palate, and had some wet earth and dried leaves notes. I thought this was more odd than excellent, but this will still appeal to a lot folks. I liked it at times, too. Maybe another bottle will show better.  88 points.

 

1975 Chateau Lynch Bages

I liked the way this opened, but it ultimately mirrored the performance of the 1975 Ducru above. First, it showed some powerful tannins on the finish that gave the wine grip and intensity, although they moderated fairly quickly with air. The fruit they seemed fairly sweet, but in a cooler, more focused way than the Ducru. The wine was rather bright. All was well. Lots of  air, however, simply degraded the wine, too far, too fast.  Although it took an hour and a half or so, it began to show way too much decay, wet leaves and oxidation. This had its moments; just not enough of them. 85 points.

 

1962 Chateau La Mission Haut Brion

For a short while, this tasted good. So they said. I arrived five minutes late, waited 20 minutes to get to it (in a decanter) and that was that. What I did taste was a wine that seemed a bit musty, but still had some sweet fruit up front and a reasonable concentration level.  The oxidative notes were beginning to rise to the fore far too fast, however.   Ultimately, it was a bit of a relief to dump it. 78 points.

 

1985 Chateau La Mission Haut Brion

A powerful nose promised great things; I was a little less thrilled with the palate. Still, the wine remains ripe and with reasonable depth. There’s a little too much charred fruit (a function of bad storage somewhere?) and tobacco, however, and perhaps some brett. I was looking for a bit more purity of fruit, and not getting it.  Nothing in the texture or depth made up for the flavor profile. This bottle or The Way it Is?  We’ll have to dig up some bottles and retaste. 85 points.

 

1995 Chateau L’Angelus

Classy, deep, pure, ripe, and powerful—a stunning St. Emilion. Very youthful (as you might expect), this inky black wine displays a lot of sweet, primary fruit. It was simply delicious. However, as youthful as it was, it is very approachable, although not at peak (another three to five years?).  With air, the components of this wine integrated beautifully, it showed ripe tannins underneath, and it kept evolving into a perfectly balanced, persistently flavorful whole. A beautiful wine. 93 points.

 

1989 Chateau Angelus
Coming right up behind the sexy 1995, is this perennial favorite from Angelus.  It starts slow, and then explodes. It shows fine depth and some game, and lots of cherries, but seems a bit subdued at first. Air. More air. Then, the mid-palate goes quietly syrupy, almost, yet there's acid in the back, and ripe tannins, too. The texture becomes fatter. The wine changed and improved about every 30 seconds for as long as I had it.  Still, a prime time superstar. 96 points.

 

1982 Chateau Canon
Most right bank wines would have complained at having to hold up to the lovely 89 Angelus, so it's no surprise the Canon's star dimmed quickly. A little too bright, it was mostly dominated by brett, and charred fruit. It was saved at first by some intensity, but with air, the wine thinned a bit and the brett and char didn't. By the end, I didn't really want to drink this at all.  82 points.

 

[Return to Top]  

---

Burgundy (red) (except dessert/sparkling)
1999 Echezeaux (V. Girardin)
Open for a full day before I got any, and simply recorked without even refrigeration, this showed beautifully.  Reports are that the day before it was hard and unapproachable. Not now. Twenty-four hours of breathing in a bottle half full turned into a velvety, seductive, raspberry-scented Burg, beautifully elegant, with good depth. It can be had for around $50, which is pretty good for grand cru Burgundy.  This should age nicely, develop beautifully.  91 points.

1999 Bonnes Mares (Domaine Bart)

I really disliked the somewhat vegetal nose, although the palate was better. It did follow through, but tended to blow off more quickly in the mouth. I liked the bright finish, and there was a reasonable amount of depth and structure. But then, I remember I am talking about grand cru, and young grand cru at that, and it seems not quite intense or deep or structured enough. The flavors eventually improved, and the wine will certainly show better in three years or so. Will the off notes go away?  It’s not bad Burgundy, but routine grand cru. 87-89 points.

 

1999 Santenay “En Bievant” (Domaine Bart)
Oddly enough, I like this Santenay at least as well as the Bonnes Mares. Of course, it is also a little further along than the Bonnes Mares. Still, considering bang for the buck, buy this instead!  Bright and clean, the raspberry notes are pure and aggressive, a bit sharper, than say, the Groffier below, but certainly more pristine than on the Bonnes Mares. While this isn’t quite as deep as the Bonnes Mares, above, I liked its charming, friendly demeanor and purity of fruit more.  87-89 points.

 

1999 Gevrey-Chambertin (Groffier)
This is a pretty, and elegant village wine from Groffier. I loved the pristine, flavorful, raspberry fruit. The wine was also beautifully structured, with ripe tannins, and just enough acid. The texture had enough velvet to provide a seductive mouthfeel, too.  The finish was pure red fruit, and it kept improving every time I went back to it.  88-90 points.

 

1990 Gevrey-Chambertin “Lavaux St. Jacques” (R. Leclerc)

A bit of tomato, a bit of strawberry, and a relatively deep middle led to an enjoyable wine once the components knit together. Broad, expansive, lush and flavorful,  the wine drank easy and seemed mature—perhaps a function of the fact that it showed some seepage once the capsule was removed. For all that it endured, it showed pretty well.  88 points.

 

1995 Savigny-le-Beaune “Les Marconnets” (Simon Bize)

Tasted young, this wine showed VERY differently, seeming much more lush and sweet. In this incarnation, it is very sharp, featuring prominent acid that never wholly dissolved into the fruit, but did moderate with air. Its core is light to medium-bodied at best.  It had some good things going for it—the nice, focused hit of raspberry fruit, for instance. Ultimately, it seemed overly acidic, which is startling, since it sure didn’t seem that way on release. 85 points.

 

1985 Griottes-Chambertin (Ponsot)
I've never thought this was Ponsot's best '85 grand cru, a year in which the Domaine produced some stunning wine. Still--it is nothing to sneeze at and it has held well.  Age has brought it elegance and harmony, although it has also dulled the fruit a tad. Consequently, by the end of the long time I had it, it perhaps slipped a notch. Those are all quibbles though.  From the opening sharp raspberries, to the middle stage, smooth, well integrated wine, this drank easy and retained its persistence on the finish. There's enough succulent fruit left to make anyone happy, and the mid-palate shows good depth, too. 92 points.

 

 

[Return to Top]  

---

Burgundy (white) (except dessert/sparkling)
1992 Batard-Montrachet (Domaine Leflaive)
I've had this several times, and it is aging gracefully.  This is what I call a sneaky wine--something the French do so well, and so few others can figure out. On opening, it seems soft and unexceptional, at first. A bit too gentle. But then you notice, the persistent, gorgeous finish, laced with hazelnut nuances and drilled home with just enough acid.  Suddenly, the wine delivers flavor. And although it seems a bit light and inoffensive, it never shows hollow--it is too mouthgripping on the finish for that.  Ultimately, I liked this a lot.  91 points.

1992 Corton-Charlemagne (L. Latour)
If you can call white Burgundy burly, this is it...Deep, fat, rich and powerful, this oozes fruit and flaunts its intensity and power. The first sign is an unusually powerful, traditional hazlenut bouquet. The first tastes are deep, thick and tight, showing some tannin and oak, and tons of fruit flavor, too. With air, a lot of air, it does smooth out and even shows some smoothness and elegance. No holds barred Corton-Charley, to sum up. 95 points.

1992 Puligny-Montracher "Les Combettes" (E. Sauzet)
A hint of cream starts this wine off, but then the bright acid takes over. This shows thinning fruit, and is in another universe in terms of depth from the Latour, above. Yet, at the same time, it has enough so that it improved with air, and the bouquet grew more powerful with short term aeration. It took a good fifteen minutes to develop a nose, and then it became a sexy, subtle but very charming wine. 90 points.

 

[Return to Top]  

---

California/USA  (except dessert/sparkling)
Mondavi Reserve vertical:  1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998 Cabernet Reserve (Mondavi); 1997 Cabernet "Oakville" (Mondavi); 1997 Cabernet "Stag's Leap" (Mondavi)
So, let's do these all at once. They were tasted together, served blind, with a few ringers. Nine prestige bottles of Mondavi. (We had the 1990 and 1987 reserves, too, but they were so obviously heat damaged and/or poorly stored that there was no point in reviewing them.) And the winners were: Hands down, the 1991 and 1994. That's perhaps no surprise. I consider the 1991 Napa cab vintage to be the finest I've ever seen in California. If it has a challenger, it is probably 1994. No surprise that Mondavi, which always aims for a restrained, elegant style, acquires a bit more intensity in bigger, deeper vintages. As a group, these wines were pretty tasty. I do have to say that recent criticism of Mondavi for becoming a bit too restrained has a point. Outside of the 1991 and 1994, little here was truly exceptional. In a $35 cabernet, these would have all been fine. For something around $100 per bottle, though, a lot of these wines seemed a bit too middle of the road. It's not that their style is so "wrong." It is just a bit undistinguished, and lacking distinction.  That said, the purity of flavor was just what I want in cabernet, and they all drank well and showed consistency in style and flavor profile. In this style, though, perhaps you'd save a lot of money with mid-level Bordeaux.

• 1991 Reserve: A touch of tobacco, a bit of cassis. A nice velvety texture. With its excellent depth, focus and concentration, it could only get better with air, and it did.  It also had a beautiful purity of fruit. This is what Napa cab should taste like, Bryant Family fans. This is what we call "typicity." Add a lovely, flavorful finish, and you've got another fine 1991 cab. Charming, delicious.  93 points.

• 1992 Reserve:  Nicely wrought, very typically cab, like all of these, but also thinning a bit in the mid-palate and not showing a whole lot of depth or focus. I liked the mid-palate flavor, though, and was pleased to drink it. Particularly at the outset, it had enough grip to show some intensity, but aeration did not help it in that regard.  89 points.

• 1993 Reserve: Some charcoal, some leather and some tar added nice nuances to the classic cab flavors Mondavi always delivers. The finish faded, though, and it was a little too elegant, all things considered, and clearly too thin in the mid-palate. Pleasant, but a long way from distinguished. I liked the 1992, which suffered from some of the same weaknesses, a bit better. 87 points.

• 1994 Reserve: Take the 1993. Add depth. Add beautifully pure, juicy, concentrated fruit, and a nice finish, and this seemed like a big winner. Would it improve with air like the 1991 or slide a bit like the 1992? "Improved," was the right answer. This showed a lot of the youth that '94s do these days, but it did not take long to flesh out, gain weight and drink just fine. It seems ready to me, but will still improve with a couple of years more of cellaring.  This did not quite have the velvety texture of the 1991, but a few more years in the cellar may let it evolve to that point. 92 points.

• 1996 Reserve:  This was one of the more controversial wines in the lineup. At first, it seemed bigger than the 1994, although the latter gained weight with air. I think on the whole, it was a bit deeper, if not as well structured. Unusually rich and ripe, someone muttered "overripe," I still liked the depth and power of this wine. I suspected a bit of volatile acidity on it, though.  For all that, it drank well, although it was rather exotic for Mondavi, assuming this to be a typical bottle. Some disliked the off notes. I liked the mid-palate depth. 90 points.

• 1997 Reserve: Broad and expansive, this reserve shows fairly nice depth, but not much focus, and little intensity. For such a young and expensive wine, this seems to be a bit of a worrisome point, and I question how well this will age. I rate this even up with the 1996, but the styles are dramatically different and this wine will not be as controversial. The 1996 is big, deep and rich. This has only reasonable depth, but open, classically flavored, and delicious fruit. 90 points.

• 1997 Oakville:  Surprisingly tannic in the context of the Mondavi lineup, this shows powerfully, and puts on weight with air. It lacks the texture and flavor of the 97 reserve, though, and at times seems a bit simplistic. This needs more cellaring than the '97 Reserve, also.  If it develops well, it could actually surpass the Reserve. My bet is that it won't develop that well, despite its better structure. I suspect, too, that this will age better than the charming Reserve, even though you may never like it as much. 88-90 points.

• 1997 Stag's Leap: Nice cassis notes wrapped around a focused backbone give this a nice overall demeanor. It thinned a bit too fast with air, though, and never picked up some needed weight. Pleasant, but not great. 88 points.

• 1998 Reserve: Sweet charming fruit, and not much else. When I had this recently matched against other 1998s, its charm was more evident and it fooled me somewhat.  It is always good to have a few known quantities around for benchmarks, regardless of the merits of blind tastings. Here, matched against the 1991 and 1994, etc., however, its thinness was the most glaring attribute. It had no finish, no depth and no structure. Not to say that the wine has no merits. What I originally liked about it is still there. The fruit is still quite tasty and enjoyable, and classically cab. It is an excellent $20 cabernet. Unfortunately, it sells for about five times that. 87 points.

1997 Cabernet “Barelli” (Gallo) QPR Winner

I’ve often called the Gallo “Frei” a great cab bargain.  The Barelli shows its worth here. Compared to the Frei, it is sweeter, more sugary, and perhaps has a zin or shiraz feel to it. If you’ve a yen for cab and cassis, this may be not be the right wine to pull.  The Frei is a bit more classical and focused, perhaps.  This is not profound cab, but what it is…..is a simply delicious crowd-pleaser that comes in at a very reasonable price for the quality level (under $20). It is succulent, soft and sexy.  Its lack of much structure and sweet demeanor make it a guilty pleasure, but put the emphasis on pleasure. 88 points.

 

1998 Pinot Noir “Grand Detour” (Landmark)

A bit of red berry flavor, a bit of game, a fairly weighty and rustic wine….served blind, these aspects and several others added up to every possible guess but pinot noir, with one person’s “Italian syrah,” seeming inspired and very good even after the label was revealed. I had to admire the wine’s depth and intensity, and if I could have just put out of my mind that it was supposed to be pinot noir, I would have liked it more. Alas, I hunted in vain for pinot typicity, as did the table. Most dumped this pretty fast. Maybe a different crowd looking for a Rhone would have liked it better. 84 points.

 

1998 Merlot (Berthound)

Soft, charming, grapey and gentle, this pleasing little wine tastes sweet, and has some elegance, but probably doesn’t justify its over $30 pricing. There’s little structure, although with air it does acquire some Bordeaux-like characteristics, whereas it started as an obvious California meritage/cab/merlot. There’s just not much underneath, though. It’s short, and thin in the mid-palate. Considering the vintage, it’s quite tasty, though.  86 points.

 

1997 Cabernet “Eisele Vineyard” (Araujo)

This wine has not gotten the best press, but it sure seemed pretty sexy to me. Call it hedonism squared.  No, it’s not the most structured cab ever made, but it never seemed hollow or flabby either.  Hey, let’s move on. Structure is not what this wine is about. It showed sweet blackberry fruit, tinged with mint chocolate. The mid-palate, contrary to expectations, was fairly thick, almost port-like. I loved the seductive, velvety texture, too. This retained its exuberance and its distinctly New World nuances at all. There was, perhaps, a touch too much oak, but it integrated fairly well on a young wine over the course of the evening. It made a lot of friends and while it may improve with a couple of years more of cellaring, I wonder if it ever will taste better or be more seductive than it is right now. 93 points.

 

1999 Merlot (Madrigal)
This winery is not very well known, and I’ve only had a few of their wines. The first batch, a year or two ago, were good but not exceptional. This represents a big step up.  It opened tight and intense, with a  bright, underlying demeanor and some obvious tannins. Two hours later, it had exploded, gaining weight, succulence, flavor, and depth, while showing riper tannins. I really began to like the chewy, chocolate texture, and rich, round fruit. It has the fruit, it has the backbone. This has to represent one of the nicer new world Merlots I’ve had for awhile. This will probably drink better in 2003-2005 and hold easily to 2009.  I will be interested to see if it develops as well as I think it will.  Pricing will probably be in the mid-20s, which makes a definite wine to buy, considering the prices for Cab/Meritage wines in California these days.  90 points.

 

1999 Zinfandel (Madrigal)
Spicy, with briars and brambles, this was bright, elegant and medium bodied at best. If you’re looking for a Big Zin style, whether a powerful Ravenswood, or an exuberant Ridge, this isn’t it.  It is, however, very typical of the varietal, flavorful, and easy going. Charming, on the whole.  87 points.

 

2000 Merican (Chaddsford)
Simply delicious. This is Pennsylvania red is mostly cabernet sauvignon, not cab franc, but it reminded me more of a ripe Loire red than a California cab sauv. If you’re looking for big, powerful, well structured wines—this isn’t it.  It’s not 1982 Gruaud, and won’t be.  It’s fairly light, but very flavorful. At this stage, it is very grapey and is drinking well. I didn’t sense enough tannin to think it will close down hard. I loved the sexy, velvety texture. It’s hard to rate it higher, considering its lack of depth compared to Big Boys,  and considering that some part of the score does revolve around the issue of aging potential and ability to improve and develop, but don’t let that stop you from enjoying it for what it is, as you will get more pleasure from it now than you might think from the score.  If it shows as well after release, grab it and drink it.  This sweet, young fruit will be too good to waste.  85-87 points.

 

The following were all tasted together in a peer group setting mostly focusing on 1994 Cal cabs and meritage wines, along with another bottle of the 1994 Mondavi Reserve on which I had reported a few weeks ago (see above):

 

1994 Etude (Soter)
This opened with a nose of briars, blackberries and brambles--and I liked it a lot right off the bat. The palate was very bright, and very focused; yet it seemed round and smooth, too, not sharp. If it lacked the depth of some of the other wines, it showed a lot of charm, and beautiful aromatics.  Pretty tasty, too! 90 points.

 

1994 Monte Bello (Ridge)
I was a bit surprised at how this showed. Oh, it was quite good, but seemed very bright, and seemed to be drinking well already.  It showed expansive and sweet, with a touch of mint, very elegant, and very broad. It seemed to lack the depth and intensity of the other fine 94s, though it was true to its reputation of being very Bordeaux-like. I had to wonder if this was a representative bottle though; it just seemed a bit farther along than it should have been. 90 points.

 

1994 Dominus
In a very fine lineup, the majority of tasters, myself included, thought that this was the big winner. At long last, the 1994s have shaken off their slumber. Not long after release, this was tight, massive, closed and brooding. It seemed to have fruit--but it was so powerfully concentrated it seemed to have no flavor. It was just a stone wall. Well, this is not at peak yet--another three to five years might see it show at its best--but it is certainly opening and approachable. People commented first on the violets on the nose, pretty, ripe and inviting. But then there was the power. This is still a wine with a great backbone, yet perfect balance. It projects controlled power.  Then, the fruit popped out, sweet, classical cab, laced with rich cassis, showing very young and absolutely pristine. As it evolved, it showed more smoothly, more roundly, but also intensely. Over some four hours, it developed and changed constantly, always for the better. It is fun to argue about over whether this or the 1991 Dominus is the best ever made. Certainly, they are each about as good as Cal cab gets. Complex, deep, flavorful, sweet, built for the long haul and constantly evolving in the glass. This has it all.  This is still improving, and I expect it will show even better with another few years of cellaring.  98 points.

 

1994 Insignia (Phelps)
In this long lineup of superlative 1994 cabs, if the Dominus was not the wine of the night, I would have voted for the Insignia. This is another 1994 that when tasted just around release time seemed massive, brooding and totally closed. You knew the fruit was there; it was just impossible to taste. It has begun to open in the last year or so, but it showed unbelievably well tonight. The power has fallen off the Insignia much faster than Dominus. This is pure hedonism now. Considering that this wine is half the price of Shafer, and a tiny fraction of things like Harlan, Screaming Eagle and Colgin at auction, you can only wonder why this doesn't sell out immediately in every good vintage. Powerful on opening, it evolved very quickly into a thick, opulent, and remarkably sweet wine. It was unmitigated sex appeal, seductive and velvety, showing red berry nuances. It seemed to ooze fruit on the palate. Simply beautiful. 96 points.

 

1994 "Special Selection" (Caymus)
Standing out in a tough lineup, this wine was flavorful, exotic, and elegant. I loved the dark black cherry nuances on the palate, which was a good thing, since the fruit lingered forever on the tongue. What a great finish....  This does not have quite the depth of the Dominus or Insignia, but it has impeccable balance, and a cool, calm, collected demeanor.  It shows some intensity, while effortlessly throwing off flavor. Very pretty, utterly charming. 92 points.

 

1994 Cabernet Reserve (Beringer)
Chocolate Burgundy? This was an intriguing wine, marked by contrasts and contradictions. The end result was damned fine, though. First, I thought it had some merlot aspects to it, some chocolate and roundness. Then, it seemed raspberry scented and nuanced, and it rounded into something very elegant and bright. Burgundy? Chocolate raspberries? Well, there's a lot going on here, for sure. It adds good depth and a bit of intensity, too. This is not at peak yet; look for a few years cellaring to improve it. 92 points.

 

1994 Cabernet "Hillside Select" (Shafer)
Robust and sweet, this wine showed SO much overt fruit on opening that I thought it someone was squeezing a piece of fruit in my mouth, letting the fresh juices run over my tongue. With air, it calmed down and acquired balance, and the fruit took on some nice red berry nuances. That squeezed juice aspect moderated and the wine showed impressive structure. The Insignia held its sweetness far longer, actually.  Respectably concentrated, and likely to age very well, I thought the balance on the wine was perfect, and the depth excellent. A very fine HS, with the potential to improve with more cellaring. 93 points.

1994 Cabernet Reserve (Groth)
This threw off a bit game at first, but became very classical, very elegant and very cool. It improved a lot with air.  In the middle, the fruit became laced with very sweet, tasty cassis, and it became rather sexy.  It also, though, lacked the depth of the top wines of the vintage. Still, you couldn't really dislike this--it was just a bit outclassed.  89 points.

 

1986 Opus One
Someone said it was a Bordeaux imitator. True. But the Bordeaux it was imitating was overly mature, rather faded, showing way too many signs of decay and oxidation.  Add thinning, and a bit sour on the finish, too. 79 points.

 

1998 Cabernet (Jones Family)
I keep liking my Jones a lot.  There's the hedonism factor. Then, there's the structure. And the wine tastes like cab. In an off vintage, this is a very fine success. Inky black, this was purely erotic fruit.  It opened tight, and fresh, but then bright, red berry notes popped up. Then some cassis. Its exuberance made some folks wonder if it was Australian cab.  There's some structure underneath, but nothing like the 96 or 97.  The fruit is amazingly sweet and flavorful.  It was a lot of fun to drink. The issue: not enough structure, too soft, probably won't age particularly well. Check in around 2006. If this is still as fine and is going strong, I could be talked into upping the score. 89+ points.

 

1986 Cabernet Reserve (Simi)
I was extremely surprised and pleased with how this showed--at first. I liked the blackberries and oriental spices on the nose, and fruit. The fruit was sweet adn very tasty, even though the wine had a certain mature Bordeaux balance to it. It seemed classical and lovely, even though it had some notes of age around the edges. What it did not do was hold up well with air. A couple of hours later I took another pour from the bottle and it had come close to death. Drink fast--you'll like it. Call this a compromise score. 87 points.

 

 end of peer group tasting

 

1996 Cabernet “Kenefick Ranch” (Behrens & Hitchcock)

Very sweet, fairly intense fruit here had many good points. But the wine also showed some B&H styling from this period: a thick, very jammy, almost syrupy center a little too heavy on the oak.  Lush, ripe, styled more like an exuberant Aussie shiraz than a Cal cab, I found a lot here to like, but ultimately thought the oak and over-the-top aspects obscured the varietal character too much. 88 points.

 

1996 Pinot Noir "Goldridge Vineyard" (Dehlinger)
This opened with a good news, bad news aspect. On the one hand the crushed raspberry bouquet was intense and glorious, and the flavor followed through to the palate. It was very sexy. But the wine also seemed a bit too high in acid and disjointed. Ten minutes of air fixed all that, and it knit together beautifully, I might say miraculously, achieving a balance I wasn't sure it would or could. Ultimately, I really came to like the succulent fruit in the now-velvety texture. Lovely and lush, on many a night might pass for a Burg, too.  92 points.

 

1991 Dalla Valle (Maya)
Hmmm. Black cherries. Intense tannins on back. With air, it became very focused and seemed more like Bordeaux. But at times, it was very California. The inky black color was impressive, too.  Served blind, I lose the guess, but get to drink more of the wine. I have to say, though, very nice it was, but compared to the large number of stunning California cabs/meritages I've had lately, this is very good, but probably not good enough to justify its reputation or price. 90 points.

 

1992 Cabernet Reserve (Beringer)
Great grip and sweetness on the finish were a pleasure at the outset. With air, this wine did nothing but show its class. It lacks the depth and intensity of the 91 or 94, but it starts slow, comes on strong, and renders a very classical, elegant performance. 91 points.

 

1997 Zinfandel "Hayne Vineyard" (Turley)

I've reported on this before, but this bottle seemed different. Completely different. Perhaps that is because it was decanted for a couple of hours, which let this wine show off its over-the-top aspects, rather than its initial, soft approachability. Served blind, it seemed all kirsch, oak and vanilla, and it was frankly a bit hard to take. It seemed a tad disjointed, too. Despite the long decanting, though, it actually pulled together in the glass, and I wound up liking the very sweet fruit and persistent waves of flavor a lot. I've had this with little air and liked it a lot. I liked how it showed better at the end with a lot of air. In the middle, it was not as good. So, whatever you want to make of that.....90 points.

 

1996 Pinot Noir (Navarro)
As a dessert wine maker, Navarro is close to deity status. As for their dry wines, ho-hum. Here's another example. In typical Navarro style, the presentation is well balanced, and classical, and it seems like a pinot weight wine. In typical Navarro style, the wine goes flat at the end, has no length, finish or flavor, and very much seems to be a case of a winery trying too hard not to let things ripen or show dramatically, the better, perhaps, to distinguish the dry from the dessert wines. In sum, rather flat, and ho-hum, though no other visible defects. For a premium wine, this is not enough.   83 points.

 

1996 "Firebreak" (Shafer) QPR Winner
Let me vote for Shafer as California's best Italo-clone. This Super-Tuscan imitator is reasonably priced, around mid-20s, and impressively deep. It has structure, too. It opens with nice intensity and underlying tannins. With air, the wine keeps improving. This shows way more ripeness than real Tuscans usually gets, i.e., it is California. I think that may be a good thing, in general, when dealing with sangiovese.  This particular vintage may have even come close to overripeness. Opulent and powerful, yet balanced with air, this generally hits all the right notes, and is perhaps just a hair behind the beautiful '94.  90 points.

 

1997 Gewurztraminer Vendange Tardive (Navarro)

See comments re: the '96 Pinot Noir from Navarro, above. This is better, but it is another example of what happens to Navarro when they go dry. There was a bit of gewurz nose on this, but no spice. The wine tasted distinctive, but not quite all-the-way there gewurz. Still, mostly it showed fairly well, and fairly intense, if it didn't exactly make you want to run out and pour down the drain your $12 Alsace gewurzs. The wine finished short, and a touch bitter, and bit hot, too. I liked the attack and the intenstiy, but there were questions all down the line. 86 points. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Return to Top]  

---

Dessert/Sparkling 
1990 Chateau Guiraud
Bright, and seemingly not much else at first, this Sauternes steadily put on weight, becoming richer, rounder and more flavorful with air and warmth.  I liked what became the slight syrupy quality in the mid-palate, and the wine kept getting sexier. I was sorry I had to leave. Who knows...I might have gotten lucky!  92 points.

 

1988 Chateau Lafaurie Peyraguey

While the Guiraud, above, was sexy and sweet, the Lafaurie was complex and heavily marked by botrytis, seemingly a different style of Sauternes. Once the component parts integrated with the aid of aeration, though, the Lafaurie did a pretty nice job of providing some sweet, unctuous fruit itself, and had a great finish to boot.  I don't know which I liked better. They were both interesting, distinctive, and fun to drink. Served from 375ml.  92 points.

 

1999 Riesling Beerenauslese “Kreuznacher Krotenpfuhl” (Paul Anheuser)

Nice balance in every respect, with reasonably deep, reasonably flavorful fruit, and reasonable acid, with reasonable sweetness. What I didn’t get was anything more than reasonable. It never seemed to develop anything of any distinction at any point, nor any intensity. It was pleasant, not exceptional, neither particularly focused nor particularly rich. For young BA, I hope for a bit more.  87 points.

 

1987 Late Harvest Semillon (Penfold’s)

Does it sound odd if I say that this wine was totally over-the-hill, but I liked it anyway? The fruit had thinned badly, leaving no lushness. The flavor characteristic bore no resemblance to botrytis and Semillon, seeming like watery sherry instead. Yes, maderization had set in. Yet, it kinda tasted good, if thin, allowing that it had a bit of a strawberry kool-aid feel.  Still, call this a bit of an oddity, but not unpleasant. 82 points.

 

 

[Return to Top]  

---

Germany (except dessert/sparkling)

1989 Riesling Spatlese “Bruderberg” (Maximim Grunhaus)

Delicate fruit here had some trouble standing up to a lemony, very acidic wine.  As the wine warmed, the acidity did mellow out, but the fruit also took on dowager characteristics, showing little vibrancy and a bit too much maturity. This had its good points, but it left me underwhelmed. 86 points.

 

1999 Riesling Auslese “Kanzemer Altenberg” (Von Othengraven)

Luscious and gentle, this wine was simply delicious. I liked the sugary finish, although the mid-palate always seemed in balance. For consumption now, this was delightful. I wonder about its future, though. There was a touch of acid on the finish, but it was most overwhelmed by the fruit. The wine seemed otherwise formless and relatively unstructured. For consumption now, great. For the future….I wouldn’t take the chance myself, although some vowed to find out. 87 points.

 

1990 Riesling Auslese “Schwarzhofberger” (R. von Kesselstatt)

Tangy, precise, intense and flavorful, this beautifully melds the gripping acidity with the sweet fruit and residual sugar into an extremely tasty whole.  It’s just off-dry, at least perceptibly at this point, but there’s enough residual sugar to balance the acidity perfectly. The acidity, quality of fruit, power and backbone, make it a formidable wine with excellent depth and a fine, lingering finish.  Just about what you want in maturing Riesling.  92 points.

 

1990 Riesling Auslese “Wehlener Sonnenuhr” AP 2 582 038 14 91 Fuder 4 Gold Kap (Meulenhof/Erben Justen Ehlen)

Bright, refreshing and charming, this beautifully balanced Riesling shows very nice integration with the residual sugar and the acid. The RS mostly balances the acid, as the wine is not overly sweet by perception.  The fruit has hardly a hint of maturity, seeming fresh and pristine. Focused and precise, this simply drank well all evening long.  90 points.

 

1995 Riesling Auslese “Zeltinger Himmelreich” (F.W. Gymnasium)

Imagine the Tour de France. A group of riders race down the hill. This one is called FRUIT. That one is called ACID. The one in the middle is called RESIDUAL SUGAR. Not far behind is FINISH and CONCENTRATION.  They all excel, they catch up to one another, come together in perfect balance and make a memorable wine. The fruit is so beautiful that it seems like someone crushed an apricot in your mouth, letting the fresh juice run over your taste buds.  The acidity propels the fruit into a mouth gripping, yet perfectly balanced, whole. The finish is powerful, and lingering.  Exceptional.  93 points.

 

1976 “Rauenthaler Baiken” Riesling Auslese  (Staatsdomaine)
The amber color was not the problem; the drab fruit was. The fruit had long since dried out, and had that tomato quality over-the-hill but-not-fully maderized Riesling sometimes gets.  This was not mouth-wrinkling awful, but it was awfully boring. It had mostly given up the ghost. 79 points.

  

1983 “Wehlener Sonnenuhr” Riesling Auslese (Dr. F. Weins-Prum-Erben)
A bit too old, but unlike the prior wine, it still had some vibrancy and flavor. There were apricots around the edge, but any real luscious qualities faded fast.  The acidity did propel what remained of the fruit flavors onto your palate, where they showed some remaining succulence.  This still has its moments, and there were times when I rather liked it, but it had passed prime some time ago.  84 points.

  

1989 “Niederhauser Felsen-Steyer” Riesling Auslese (Paul Anheuser)
Dry-ish, with a good medium-weight concentration level, this wine did everything well, but nothing exceptionally well. The concentration level was good; the flavors were pristine, tinged with that red fruit note some people (with good reason) insist that Nahe wines often show.  It even developed nicely with air, adding a little weight. Charming and enjoyable, but not really distinguished. 88 points.

 

1990 “Forster Kirchenstuck” Riesling Auslese (Eugen Muller)
Hummm. That’s because after the pure hit of lemons on this wine—you’d think it was bottled last week!—it was hard to unpucker my mouth. This type of acidity not only provides structure, but dominates the flavor of the wine. And there was no doubt what the flavor here was: lemons.  The wine seemed light and bright, but it was hard to get past the lemons, which simply dominated it. Maybe more cellaring will improve it—you have little choice but to wait for the acidity to integrate and moderate--but it wasn’t so pleasant to drink tonight. 86+ points.

1992 “Westhofener Morstein” Riesling Auslese (Gunter Wittmann)
Add a big sugary finish to succulent, sweet fruit in the mid-palate, and this wine just delivers flavor for every second you taste it.  For all of its sweetness, it is not particularly heavy or unctuous; yet neither is it hollow in the mid-palate.  Ultimately, this is a hedonist’s wine. You don’t want to worry about details. Just enjoy the fact that it is so delicious. 92 points.

 

1999 “Wurzburger Stein” Riesling Auslese (Juliusspital)
This unusual Franken wine doesn’t seem quite normal—but it’s pretty tasty. If served blind, I don’t know that I would have picked this out as Riesling. It has  a certain hybrid feel to it. It sure is a long way from Mosel-style Riesling. It’s tangy, with the acidity flavored with the fruit, and the fruit showing oranges and peaches. It has reasonably good depth, but then it’s rather young, too, and seems already to be drinking very well. With air it acquired some focus and some mango notes, too. Very pleasing, although not profound. 89 points.

 

1999 Riesling Auslese “Koberner Weisenberg” (Von Schleinitz)

This suffers from the flaws of the vintage, i.e., it’s another somewhat flabby, not terribly intense Riesling. But this is still pretty good for current consumption. The fruit is ripe and opulent, and VERY sexy. There’s just enough acid on the finish to help it linger. This is a wine that you won’t want to cellar, but will be a summer crowd pleaser.  87 points.

 

1990 Riesling Auslese ** “Wehlener Sonnenuhr” (Kerpen)
Beautiful, and powerful, this superlative 1990 shows the aggressive acidity of the vintage, but also a lot of succulent fruit underneath. You have to give it some air, and let it warm up, but when it does, it makes your mouth water, it tastes so good! Probably would benefit from more cellaring, though.  93 points.

1990 Riesling Spatlese “Kaseler Nies’chen” (Reichsgraf von Kesselstatt)

Pineapples at first gave way to sterner stuff, as the powerful structure in this wine showed its stuff, namely, intense acidity.  I was wondering if the fruit would survive that blast of acid, but it not only did, it prospered. As this wine aired out and warmed up, I was a little surprised but delighted to find that it knit together beautifully, and the fruit became mouth wateringly tasty. Most would say that this wine needs a lot more time to let the acidity moderate more. I think there is more than enough fruit there for the reasonable future, although I do wonder if at some point in its life span we will find this wine being overwhelmed by still aggressive acidity and fading fruit. That is an issue for the distant future. At the moment and for the reasonable future, this persistent, intense and ultimately tasty wine is superlative. 92 points.

 

1990 Riesling Kabinett "Piesporter Goldtropfchen" (Reichsgraff von Kesselstatt)
I tasted this and did a doubletake. Hmmm. The label SAYS kabinett. But surely it's at least a spatlese. For some producers it might seem like auslese. How can this be? Intense, opulent, fragrant and gloriously sweet, this no-holds-barred kabinett has to be one of the best I've ever had. It's an absolute tour de force. I just had to wonder if they cheated. Could this legally qualify as something more? It HAS to. Otherwise, my world view is seriously disrupted. Call this a reference point Kabinett. 95 points.

 

1983 Riesling Spatlese "Berkasteler Badstube" (F.W. Gymnasium)
This, I thought, has held beautifully. Oh, it lacks some intensity, and drinks a bit too easy, but it also seems relatively fresh and pure. I liked its easygoing charm, its sunny demeanor, and fresh, ripe fruit. Just a bit off dry at this point. 87 points.

   

 

[Return to Top]  

---

Italy
1998 Belcore (I Guisti & Zanza)

Fairly intense and well focused, this provides excellent flavor, nice balance, and an overall attractive demeanor. I am not sure this wine excelled in much, but it did most everything right. 89 points.

 

1997 Valpolicella Ripassa (Zenato)

This opened more intensity than Valpolicella usually sees, enough so that I never came close to guessing it, thinking more along the lines of Chateauneuf.  Tinged with strawberries, it also had more flavor than most Valpolicella ever gets, but without the watery mid-palate. If anything, on opening this wine was a bit too intense, too tannic, with some astringency on the finish.  It opened nicely, though, with some air, softening and becoming more flavorful. This is still not a heavy or thick wine; it retains that much from its Valpolicella roots, but it sure busts the category. 90 points.

 

 

 

[Return to Top]  

---

Loire

1996 Bourgeuil (Domaine des Ouches) QPR Winner

Classic Loire Valley cab franc. Sure, there are a few that aim for tannin and profundity, but precious few. The best of the rest show like this, soft, velvety, youthful, grapey and delicious. If you want structure, buy Bordeaux. Otherwise, this seductive, easy-drinking wine, at around $12, does Beaujolais far better than most Beaujolais, with more flavor and better texture.  My scores are relative between regions, so this doesn’t mean it is the equal of  a top Bordeaux, with which it does not compete due to relative lack of structure, but it is what you want from Loire cab franc. 90 points.

 

 

[Return to Top]  

 

---

 

Rhone/South/Southwest France (except dessert/sparkling)
1989 Mas de Daumas Gassac (rouge)
The wine seemed curiously light in terms of mid-palate fruit, but that doesn't mean it was shy. I never did find much fruit flavor. What there was, was a lot of astringency on the finish, and bright acid, well integrated, in the mid-palate that gave the wine some focus and mouth-gripping intensity. Good weight, but I am still waiting to find the flavor and the charm. 86 points.

 

1999 Chateauneuf du Pape (Domaine de la Solitude) QPR Winner

Bright on the back end, with velvet in the middle,  this pleasant little CdP has some overt fruit flavors and a friendly style. There’s not much structure, nor tannin, nor depth and it seems a bit too soft and light for such a young wine, but it is only $17, and it is tasty and varietally true.  Drink in the short to mid-term.  85 points.

 

1995 Corbières Reserve (Mansenoble) QPR Winner

Served blind, this seemed a dead ringer for Bordeaux. There was an oddity though—the fruit had that mature nuance, with slight hints of wet earth and forest that older Bordeaux gets. Yet, there were still very youthful hits of tannin and acidity. I suspected this wasn’t as old as it seemed. Well, at least I got that right. Very pleasing, very elegant, and  mature, with distinctive and gentle notes--yet  with a kick. A very nice buy, too.  87 points.

 

1998 Cotes du Luberon (Domaine du Fontenille) QPR Winner

This little Southern French Rhone-imitator provides tons of value every year. The '98 is not as powerful as the '94, but it is suave, elegant and flavorful.  It never seems hollow in the mid-palate, and if it is not the deepest wine, it finishes nicely in its class--$10. Smooth and silky, nuanced by bacon fat and strawberries, this hits the right notes in both flavor and texture. This has come around fast, even in the last six months,  as on release it seemed more tannic and forbidding, but it has also closed down a bit. At first, you seem relieved that the tannins have moderated. But give this 45 minutes of decanting, and suddenly the structure of the wine emerges, the underlying tannins show up--it's great stuff for the price.  88 points.

 

1991 Cote Rotie “La Mordorée (Chapoutier)
This opens with some game and barnyard, but it integrates nicely and never overwhelms the whole.  Sexy and velvety, it never seems particularly thick or deep, but never is thin either. It rounds into a bright, elegant whole. I particularly liked the way it delivered fruit: it was as if a red berry candy just dissolved on your tongue, eventually coating and saturating it.   91 points.

 

[Return to Top]  

---

Spain (except dessert/sparkling)
2000 Garnacha Tres Pico (Borsao) QPR Winner
Drinking well now, this shows spicy fruit surrounded by very ripe, gently tingling tannins.  I liked the bright, red berry notes on the fruit.  The wine seemed a bit simple, but very tasty and a pleasure to drink. Don’t look for hidden mysteries; have fun. It is drinking well now, should improve with a year or so of more cellaring. One of the best things about this wine: under $12.  87 points.

 

[Return to Top]  

This site designed and created in content and in form
by Mark Squires, copyright © 2001,  all rights reserved.